That's a really good idea, Brian. Can you set that up for us all?
B) But even so, setting aside the obvious simple fact that I don't work
for suse or admin that site, sure no problem. What part do you think
would be so hard?
I'm not especially a web guy at all, I can barely spell "ajax", but
along with eleventy-seven other general sysadmin/developer type things I
have to do every day I have to write the occasional cgi or php. I could
bang out a little proof of concept of the auto-404-redirect&report thing
out of bash and a flat text file in, I don't know, an hour? three?. It's
The time to have done the other more exhaustive idea was before breaking
all the existing links, or else don't break them.
> Tom Black, RHCSA
> Web Services, University of Arkansas School of Law
> 173 Waterman Hall, Fayetteville, AR 72774
> Phone: (479) 575-2100, Fax: (479) 575-7442, Cell: (479) 935-5296
> On 04/05/2011 03:51 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
>> On 4/5/2011 1:15 PM, Malcolm wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 13:01 -0400, Brian K. White wrote:
>>>> google: "insserv_cleanup"
>>>> Top/First link, and in fact most of the whole first PAGE of results,
>>>> Which refers to:
>>>> Which doesn't exist.
>>>> Sure the referrer is a mail list thread which should be considered
>>>> That doesn't change the fact that almost the whole first page of google
>>>> results for a basic term are broken.
>>> We all know that these links are broken since the wiki changes....
>>> You can always add the old, or go to the proper place
>>> or go to the proper place
>>> I always go here now;
>>> You might also want to use http://search.opensuse.org/
which is very
>> Missing the point? Or just ignoring it?
>> Of course we all know the links are broken and why.
>> Of course we all know there are other ways to get the info.
>> Of course it's old news.
>> But being old news does not make the problem go away. It's still bad
>> today despite being old news. Every new day it's bad all over again
>> just like the first day.
>> I'm sorry it's annoying to keep hearing the same complaint, but
>> everyone else suffers the breakage anew every day so why shouldn't the
>> breakers suffer the complaint anew every day as long as their damage
>> keeps being a problem? It's not like this was some natural disaster or
>> accident. It was an conscious and voluntary act. But forget me, the
>> breakage hurts SUSE anew every day rather a lot more than myself or
>> any single user. Countless broken links with suse's name on them do
>> not make a good impression to people searching for answers to problems
>> and finding only a broken link, when they are already in a poor state
>> of mind from whatever the problem is they were having that sent them
>> googling for answers.
>> The point is that the people that broke everything don't seem to think
>> that this is somehow bad. They say "gee just report the breaks".
>> I say that's completely stupid, but ok fine here is yet another one.
>> There are not merely many, but literally countless, as in there is no
>> way to count them, and far too scattered for that to be even remotely
>> possible. You can't find all the references to the old wiki that have
>> been put into other documents in the world. We're not just talking
>> other web pages but countless internal company documents, printed
>> books and hard copies, personal notes and scripts and install media
>> and livecd's and programs and support db's ...
>> There was and still is a way for users to help fix everything, but
>> it's not useful as there there is no way to know what needs to be
>> fixed. It's an open ended forever job with no way to know when you're
>> done. They pulled the trigger and switched more or less at random,
>> after the new wiki had been up "a while" and "a lot" of stuff had been
>> remapped, and "not many" or "no major" reports of gaps. All nice
>> subjective meaningless terms in place of useful quanta.
>> But a couple things ARE possible.
>> It IS possible to know what are all the urls the old wiki provides and
>> ensure they all work in some fashion before switching. A big job but a
>> finite and knowable one and the largest part of which can be farmed
>> out to users. The wiki admins can write and run a program to trawl the
>> old wiki db and associated web pages and cgi's and compile a list of
>> all possible old urls. Users and admins can then all work on that list
>> until it's gone.
>> Even easier than that, why isn't the 404 page simply trying old-en on
>> the fly for every request that doesn't exist in the new wiki? It could
>> try swapping in old-en, and if the result exists and isn't old-en's
>> 404, then transparently serve up the old-en page and log the discovery
>> in a bugzilla or or other db that not only admins but users could work
>> on. It could even keep a hit counter for each miss/hit so you'd know
>> which articles to fix first. As a natural by-product that would also
>> have the appearance of fixing all the internal links within the old
>> wiki too as well as external ones.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org